الفهرس 
IncidenceOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 99 |  |  |
| | | from | 99 | | |
Abstract
The Aim of this work is to provide cumulative data about the efficacy and safety of neuro-muscular electrical stimulation (NMES) combined with usual care (UC) versus usual care alone in ICU patients with critical illness myopathy (CIM).
The included studies published between 2009 and 2019. The total number of patients in all the included studies was 1259 patients; 652 in NMES group, and 607 in UC group.
Our data were divided into two groups: NMES (652 patients), and UC (607 patients). Meta-analysis study was done on 11 studies which described and compared the 2 different techniques for treatment of CIM; with overall number of patients (N= 1259).
We calculated efficacy for each technique through MRC scale (muscle strength scale), ICU stay and SF-36 scale (quality of life scale).
We calculated safety for each technique through CIM incidence and mortality rate.
Regarding 1ry outcome measures, we found 8 studies reported MRC scale for muscle strength, with total number of patients (N=968). The random-effects model of the meta-analysis study showed non-significant difference in mean MRC scale in NMES group compared to usual care group (p > 0.05).
We also found 11 studies reported ICU stay with total number of patients (N=1259). The random-effects model of the meta-analysis study showed non-significant difference in mean ICU stay in NMES group compared to usual care group (p > 0.05).
We also found only 2 studies reported SF-36 scale for quality of life, with total number of patients (N=270). The fixed-effects model of the meta-analysis study showed highly significant decrease in mean SF-36 scale in NMES group compared to usual care group (p = 0.003).
Regarding 2ry outcome measure, we found 3 studies reported CIM incidence with total number of patients (N=394). The fixed-effects model of the meta-analysis study showed marked decrease in CIM incidence in NMES group compared to usual care group, but not reaching statistical significance (p > 0.05).
We also found 9 studies reported mortality rate with total number of patients (N=1044). The fixed-effects model of the meta-analysis study showed non-significant difference in mortality rate in NMES group compared to usual care.
Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that NMES combined with usual care was not associated with significant differences in global muscle strength, ICU stay, quality of life score, CIM incidence and mortality rate in comparison with usual care alone in critically ill patients.
We conclude that NMES is not superior to usual care in management of CIM. Usual care remains the mainstay of management of CIM with significant better outcomes, in addition to preventive measures as early aggressive treatment of sepsis and MOF, blood glucose control, optimizing certain drugs use, early enteral nutrition, maintaining water, electrolyte and acid‐base balance.